Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Science and Technology => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on October 05, 2017, 06:46:46 AM
-
Ridiculously overblown headline but quite interesting stuff
http://www.newsweek.com/are-we-living-computer-simulation-scientists-prove-elon-musk-wrong-677251?amp=1
-
Looks like curtains for NDG Tyson then and his atheist friendly brand of ID. Although since this universe would have to be simulated in another one has to wonder why the researchers are basing their objections on data about this universe.
It's almost like a figure in a Bosch painting saying we can't be a simulation because all the paint there's ever been is in this picture.
-
My sense though is that we will be denied any discussion on this since those who are sympathetic to the idea of simulated universe being valid as a hypothesis would face a grilling on why there opinions on ID have changed.
I also wonder how much enthusiasm there will now be in antitheist driven scientists for multiverse since it has opened the door to a version of ID.
-
My sense though is that we will be denied any discussion on this since those who are sympathetic to the idea of simulated universe being valid as a hypothesis would face a grilling on why there opinions on ID have changed.
I also wonder how much enthusiasm there will now be in antitheist driven scientists for multiverse since it has opened the door to a version of ID.
What is your opinion on ID?
-
What is your opinion on ID?
I didn't like it but simulated universe theory seems to have made it respectable.
What do you think of simulated universe theory and then can you tell me the difference?
-
I didn't like it but simulated universe theory seems to have made it respectable.
I don't think they're the same things.
What do you think of simulated universe theory and then can you tell me the difference?
The simulated universe could a) have been programmed to be random, and see what emerges or b) could have been a modelled copy of an extant, naturally occurring, unguided universe.
O.
-
I didn't like it but simulated universe theory seems to have made it respectable.
What do you think of simulated universe theory and then can you tell me the difference?
I dont like it.
Nothing makes ID credible.
-
I don't think they're the same things.
The simulated universe could a) have been programmed to be random, and see what emerges or b) could have been a modelled copy of an extant, naturally occurring, unguided universe.
O.
If a simulated universe is a program then how are you basing your decisions as to what can be programmed. In other words why are you specially pleading only points a and points b?
-
I dont like it.
Nothing makes ID credible.
and therefore simulated universes are not credible?
-
If a simulated universe is a program then how are you basing your decisions as to what can be programmed. In other words why are you specially pleading only points a and points b?
I'm not limiting what can be programmed, I'm pointing out that it specifically includes those two possibilities, no that it's limited to those. As it is, those are the possibilities that have actually been put forward by the proponents of the theory.
By contrast, Intelligent Design - as has been legally described as being religion by another name - by it's nature doesn't preclude these ideas, but goes beyond them in its usual formulation to claim that the 'real' universe is intelligently designed ex nihilo.
O.
-
I'm not limiting what can be programmed, I'm pointing out that it specifically includes those two possibilities, no that it's limited to those.
O.
PHEW.....then you have avoided the charge of Goddodging on that point.
However, that leaves you open to the possibility that the universe was intelligently designed. What then is your defence against lining up withthe IDers?
-
By contrast, Intelligent Design - as has been legally described as being religion by another name -
So it is the religious aspects you are specially pleading against.
-
So it is the religious aspects you are specially pleading against.
I'm not specially pleading anything. The US Supreme Court (twice, I believe) has pointed out that this formulation of creationism is just religious pleading in a poor disguise. It makes claims that can't be supported by the arguments offered, I'm just refusing to accept it on that basis, I'm not pleading anything.
O.
-
I'm not specially pleading anything. The US Supreme Court (twice, I believe) has pointed out that this formulation of creationism is just religious pleading in a poor disguise. It makes claims that can't be supported by the arguments offered, I'm just refusing to accept it on that basis, I'm not pleading anything.
O.
Since the only difference between ID and simulated universe is 'religion' then the only thing being avoided is 'religion'. In other words you are dismissing ID on the grounds of religion...aside from your opening ID is not simulated universe.....apart from etc.
It is plain here that your qualms here are purely on religion.
Whether an IDer has to be a creation ex nihilo-ist is also I would move a contentious point.
The evidence here is that you are happy to admit to the possibility of something that is in all respects the same as ID apart from the 'religion'.
Since there is no scientific ground here for dismissing ID something else must be at play which manifests as avoidance of 'religious elements'.
-
Since the only difference between ID and simulated universe is 'religion' then the only thing being avoided is 'religion'. In other words you are dismissing ID on the grounds of religion...aside from your opening ID is not simulated universe.....apart from etc.
And that's where your premise falls over - ID makes specific claims beyond those that are necessary for the simulated universe theory.
O.
-
And that's where your premise falls over - ID makes specific claims beyond those that are necessary for the simulated universe theory.
Not what I heard. Apparently IDers argue there ideas only need an Intelligence....which is what simulated universe theory is.
Once you admit to an intelligent designer anywhere in the chain you cannot preclude intervention in the programme.
There is a case, a heavy case, to call simulated universe theory Scientific Theism.
Your Lord and Master PZ Myers recognised this when he criticised De Grasse Tyson over his simulated universe ideas.
-
Not what I heard. Apparently IDers argue there ideas only need an Intelligence....which is what simulated universe theory is.
If that's where they stopped it'd be fine, but they go on to make claims about that Intelligence being uncaused, as I recall. To be fair, that's from the iteration that was prevalent around eight to ten year ago, there might be a more up-to-date version around now.
Once you admit to an intelligent designer anywhere in the chain you cannot preclude intervention in the programme.
No you can't, but you get into questions about the nature of the designer; that's, of course, accepting that the simulated universe hypothesis is just an hypothesis.
There is a case, a heavy case, to call simulated universe theory Scientific Theism.
No there isn't, there's no claim being made about the nature of the simulator or its potential maker.
Your Lord and Master PZ Myers recognised this when he criticised De Grasse Tyson over his simulated universe ideas.
You keep forgetting that atheism ('New' or otherwise) and science doesn't operate along the hierarchic structures of religious enterprises: no-one is infallible, we don't have 'lords and masters'...
O.
-
If that's where they stopped it'd be fine, but they go on to make claims about that Intelligence being uncaused, as I recall. To be fair, that's from the iteration that was prevalent around eight to ten year ago, there might be a more up-to-date version around now.
No you can't, but you get into questions about the nature of the designer;
Congratulations......... you've just re invented theology.
-
Congratulations......... you've just re invented theology.
Why shouldn't I get a go at it. Given that it's an entirely made up field from the start, I'm just as eminently qualified as anyone else.
O.
-
Why shouldn't I get a go at it.
That's my boy.
Given that it's an entirely made up field from the start, I'm just as eminently qualified as anyone else.
O.
Entirely made up? No. I'm sure there are lots of people who are doing it and have done it on the back of the mere question of ''Was this universe created by an intelligence'' or as I suppose we should call it today ''simulated universe'' theory.
-
No. I'm sure there are lots of people who are doing it and have done it on the back of the mere question of ''Was this universe created by an intelligence'' or as I suppose we should call it today ''simulated universe'' theory.
Theology has already taken those questions for granted, and has moved on in the absence of any justification for those answers to presumptions about the nature of the thing they've not yet evidenced... Metaphysics is answering those questions, theology got bored and started a role-playing game at the back of the classroom.
O.
-
and therefore simulated universes are not credible?
Which ones?
However, firstly you will need to define;
Simulated
Universe
Credible
...before we start.
Careful now!
-
Which ones?
However, firstly you will need to define;
Simulated
Universe
Credible
...before we start.
Careful now!
I'm sorry I'm not understanding your banter.
-
I'm sorry I'm not understanding your banter.
Could you define
Understand?
Banter?
-
Theology has already taken those questions for granted,
I THINK YOU ARE MISTAKING THEOLOGY FOR BIBLICAL STUDIES HERE.
-
Mmm this thread has taken a wee daunner around. I don't understand the connection between ID and a simulation. ID is a specific position on evolution not whether we are living in a simulation. It was rejected because it's bad science as Keith Milller, who believes the universe is created, argued.
what seems much more significant to me is that the science here seems both correct in its process but wrong in its conclusion. It reads as if it correct that the idea of a simulation is based on an underestimation of the complexity (which is the opposite of ID arguments) but then it cannot be true because we cannot conceive of it. Both the idea of a simulation and its impossibility seem to be based on probability calculations which are based on too little info and selecting different variables
-
Mmm this thread has taken a wee daunner around. I don't understand the connection between ID and a simulation.
Both propose an intelligent designer.
-
Both the idea of a simulation and its impossibility seem to be based on probability calculations which are based on too little info and selecting different variables
I haven't come across anyone arguing it's impossibility and certainly we can only accept it as a hypothesis given the blessing from certain quarters of the scientific community and an argument could be had that simulated universe hypothesis is itself Bad science.
On the other hand figures and probability has been offered as far as I can understand.
Could I also, respectfully, suggest that your post is precisely what a dogmatic agnostic would say. That said.....You still da man.
-
.... and certainly we can only accept it as a hypothesis ..
Are you sure that you don't mean "theory"?
-
I haven't come across anyone arguing it's impossibility and certainly we can only accept it as a hypothesis given the blessing from certain quarters of the scientific community and an argument could be had that simulated universe hypothesis is itself Bad science.
On the other hand figures and probability has been offered as far as I can understand.
Could I also, respectfully, suggest that your post is precisely what a dogmatic agnostic would say. That said.....You still da man.
The impossibility was about the presentation of the findings in the link in the OP.
I have no idea what you mean by 'dogmatic agnostic' nor how it relates to any of this thread.
BTW given the bit of the post you edited out was exactly about the difference between ID and a simulated universry, but you choose to avoid that, can we expect a name change?
-
I THINK YOU ARE MISTAKING THEOLOGY FOR BIBLICAL STUDIES HERE.
I think that you have s bad case of Sassy-capslock!
-
The impossibility was about the presentation of the findings in the link in the OP.
I have no idea what you mean by 'dogmatic agnostic' nor how it relates to any of this thread.
BTW given the bit of the post you edited out was exactly about the difference between ID and a simulated universry, but you choose to avoid that, can we expect a name change?
There will be no name change for the moment.
-
The impossibility was about the presentation of the findings in the link in the OP.
I have no idea what you mean by 'dogmatic agnostic' nor how it relates to any of this thread.
BTW given the bit of the post you edited out was exactly about the difference between ID and a simulated universry, but you choose to avoid that, can we expect a name change?
what has simulated universe got to do with ID
This from Pharyngula
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/04/26/we-have-a-term-for-that-neil-degrasse-tyson-intelligent-design/
-
what has simulated universe got to do with ID
This from Pharyngula
https://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2016/04/26/we-have-a-term-for-that-neil-degrasse-tyson-intelligent-design/
Did you actually read that? Because it says that the only connection is people using the same bad argument for different things.
-
Did you actually read that? Because it says that the only connection is people using the same bad argument for different things.
I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
-
I don't understand what you are trying to say here.
It says the connection between ID and Simulated Universe as argued by Neil DeGrasse Tyson is the same bad argument. If you want to use the blog as a link, it means you think that ID uses a bad argument.
-
It says the connection between ID and Simulated Universe as argued by Neil DeGrasse Tyson is the same bad argument. If you want to use the blog as a link, it means you think that ID uses a bad argument.
I think I said I didn't like ID and said that simulated universe might be bad science. But my purpose was to demonstrate that to think that simulated universe was an OK/valid hypothesis and yet effectively just editing out the word God or declaring the ID hypothesis invalid in all respects because of the word God or the rumour of God was specially pleading or Goddodging.
ID must after all be a subset of simulation theory so any objection to ID from somebody proposing simulation theory must be doing so on the grounds of some religious prejudice I would have thought.
On one hand we have N de Grasse Tyson, a scientific proposing simulation theory as a valid hypothesis and on the other hand Pharyngula by PZ Myers saying it's not valid because it's ID and that's religious.
So far everybody seems to have been on the side of NDG Tyson.
-
ID is not a subset of a simulated universe. As already covered, it's specifically about evolution and has been debunked on those terms.
-
ID is not a subset of a simulated universe. As already covered, it's specifically about evolution and has been debunked on those terms.
ID can be as debunked as you like. What I want to know is why an interventionist agent proposed to be responsible is unacceptable in the case of ID but seemingly perfectly acceptable in simulated universe theory? As far as I see it, it is phobia over one word........................
God.
When proposed by NDG TYSON. Pharyngula responded that that proposal WAS ID.
But that for me is secondary to people demonstrating phobia over the word God.
-
ID can be as debunked as you like. What I want to know is why an interventionist agent proposed to be responsible is unacceptable in the case of ID but seemingly perfectly acceptable in simulated universe theory? As far as I see it, it is phobia over one word........................
God.
When proposed by NDG TYSON. Pharyngula responded that that proposal WAS ID.
But that for me is secondary to people demonstrating phobia over the word God.
ID isn't unacceptable or wring because it proposes a designer but because it is bad science. As already covered Keith Miller believes in a created universe but thinks ID is drivel.
If you think that people are treating simulated universe differently then you ate arguing against your idea that the idea of a designer is anathema to those people.
-
ID isn't unacceptable or wring because it proposes a designer but because it is bad science. As already covered Keith Miller believes in a created universe but thinks ID is drivel.
If you think that people are treating simulated universe differently then you ate arguing against your idea that the idea of a designer is anathema to those people.
I don't follow.
I think you should reread the exchange between myself and Outrider who IMHO represents somebody who finds the idea of an intelligent designer an acceptable hypothesis but cannot accept it being God even after you point out that God has the same abilities.
So simulated universe has an intelligent designer separate from its creation but responsible for it's maintenance, which can intervene and suspend the laws of the universe and that is an acceptable hypothesis.
God is proposed as an intelligent designer separate from its creation but responsible for it's maintenance, which can intervene and suspend the laws of the universe and that is an unacceptable hypothesis.
Also I think you'll agree both designers or should we say the designer because they are the same thing would be quite capable of ID.
The main point about ID is after all Intelligent design which is proposed by both ID and Simulated universe.
Why ID was discarded was on the lack of evidence and over a questionable claim of irreducible complexity and the court found it was more appropriately placed as religion. The case seemingly as you say had nothing to say about intelligent designers which must remain the main thrust of ID.
Simulated universe cannot avoid proposing an intelligent designer. It looks like it will take time for it to sink in that that opens the door to irreducible complexity and you can bet your bottom the IDers will be back in court.
To me though the real conflict is merely over the thought of God hence the mental contortion of Simulator of universes-acceptable hypothesis. God-unacceptable hypothesis.
Where PZ Myers and I agree is that NG Tyson has reintroduced God into the mix.
-
I don't follow.
I think you should reread the exchange between myself and Outrider who IMHO represents somebody who finds the idea of an intelligent designer an acceptable hypothesis but cannot accept it being God even after you point out that God has the same abilities.
So simulated universe has an intelligent designer separate from its creation but responsible for it's maintenance, which can intervene and suspend the laws of the universe and that is an acceptable hypothesis.
God is proposed as an intelligent designer separate from its creation but responsible for it's maintenance, which can intervene and suspend the laws of the universe and that is an unacceptable hypothesis.
Also I think you'll agree both designers or should we say the designer because they are the same thing would be quite capable of ID.
The main point about ID is after all Intelligent design which is proposed by both ID and Simulated universe.
Why ID was discarded was on the lack of evidence and over a questionable claim of irreducible complexity and the court found it was more appropriately placed as religion. The case seemingly as you say had nothing to say about intelligent designers which must remain the main thrust of ID.
Simulated universe cannot avoid proposing an intelligent designer. It looks like it will take time for it to sink in that that opens the door to irreducible complexity and you can bet your bottom the IDers will be back in court.
To me though the real conflict is merely over the thought of God hence the mental contortion of Simulator of universes-acceptable hypothesis. God-unacceptable hypothesis.
Where PZ Myers and I agree is that NG Tyson has reintroduced God into the mix.
Thanks for this post - it's very interesting.
I thin you are right that if you regard those proposing ID as not doing science but trying to distort it then they will seize on the idea of a simulated universe as useful. However, ID is specifically talked of in relation to the hypothesis in relation to evolution and irreducible complexity, and I think both yourself and PZ Myers are making a mistake to remove that context. I think it blurs the discussion to talk about hypotheses purely on the basis of the perceived motivation of those putting them forward. To illustrate, is Myers saying that Keith Miller while saying ID is drivel, is actually an IDer himself because he believes in a God? It just seems messy to me. I think though that Myers is right that some of DGT's arguments seem to be driven by a need to believe rather than any clear point
As to the idea of the possibility of a god being behind a simulated universe - I think the problem is what is a god? Since I haven't seen a logically consistent meaningful definition of a god, you may as well say perhaps it was a pojitu doing the simulation.
I'm not sure if a simulated universe cannot avoid proposing an intelligent designer - I think it heavily implies it but I've seen some discussion of the simulation being 'accidental' in terms of quantum effects - note I haven't looked into it as if it's correct I probably wouldn't understand why, and I'm not that interested in the idea to put in that amount of effort into it.
-
Thanks for this post - it's very interesting.
I thin you are right that if you regard those proposing ID as not doing science but trying to distort it then they will seize on the idea of a simulated universe as useful. However, ID is specifically talked of in relation to the hypothesis in relation to evolution and irreducible complexity, and I think both yourself and PZ Myers are making a mistake to remove that context. I think it blurs the discussion to talk about hypotheses purely on the basis of the perceived motivation of those putting them forward. To illustrate, is Myers saying that Keith Miller while saying ID is drivel, is actually an IDer himself because he believes in a God? It just seems messy to me. I think though that Myers is right that some of DGT's arguments seem to be driven by a need to believe rather than any clear point
As to the idea of the possibility of a god being behind a simulated universe - I think the problem is what is a god? Since I haven't seen a logically consistent meaningful definition of a god, you may as well say perhaps it was a pojitu doing the simulation.
I'm not sure if a simulated universe cannot avoid proposing an intelligent designer - I think it heavily implies it but I've seen some discussion of the simulation being 'accidental' in terms of quantum effects - note I haven't looked into it as if it's correct I probably wouldn't understand why, and I'm not that interested in the idea to put in that amount of effort into it.
Yes my position and it seems PZ Myers position is that ''the simulator'' as described by me is indistinguishable from God. You seem to be questioning that judgment. My response would then be to question your motivation to doubt given the characteristics are identical and classify it as a form of special pleading....No offence. There is a debate to be had as to whether simulated universe is religion or science or that holy grail of being both.
Where I have deeper concerns over your idea that simulation could be an accidental thing without any intelligent involvement and fail to see how a universe arising in the way you describe could be described as simulated
-
I think you should reread the exchange between myself and Outrider who IMHO represents somebody who finds the idea of an intelligent designer an acceptable hypothesis but cannot accept it being God even after you point out that God has the same abilities.
God is not depicted as just a universe-engineer.
So simulated universe has an intelligent designer separate from its creation but responsible for it's maintenance, which can intervene and suspend the laws of the universe and that is an acceptable hypothesis.
Yes.
God is proposed as an intelligent designer separate from its creation but responsible for it's maintenance, which can intervene and suspend the laws of the universe and that is an unacceptable hypothesis.
Partially. God is not merely depicted as a creator, but as something self-creating, the source not just of us but of all, and with an inherent moral 'integrity' (for want of a better description) by its nature. This is a significantly more encompassing description than 'just' a creator of us.
The main point about ID is after all Intelligent design which is proposed by both ID and Simulated universe.
Except that it wasn't, the main point about ID was that it was an attempt to squeeze religious ideas into school science lessons.
Why ID was discarded was on the lack of evidence and over a questionable claim of irreducible complexity and the court found it was more appropriately placed as religion. The case seemingly as you say had nothing to say about intelligent designers which must remain the main thrust of ID.
It was discarded because they overstepped what a scientific hypothesis could carry - a higher-level computer engineer concept is valid (although perhaps unfalsifiable) but it doesn't give the option of introducing prayer or worship or moral lessons, which ultimately was the point of the ID movement.
Simulated universe cannot avoid proposing an intelligent designer. It looks like it will take time for it to sink in that that opens the door to irreducible complexity and you can bet your bottom the IDers will be back in court.
No, irreducible complexity is a nonsense argument attempted in support of the theory, but it's independent and demonstrably false.
O.
-
I THINK YOU ARE MISTAKING THEOLOGY FOR BIBLICAL STUDIES HERE.
You know that isn't true.
-
Yes my position and it seems PZ Myers position is that ''the simulator'' as described by me is indistinguishable from God. You seem to be questioning that judgment. My response would then be to question your motivation to doubt given the characteristics are identical and classify it as a form of special pleading....No offence. There is a debate to be had as to whether simulated universe is religion or science or that holy grail of being both.
Where I have deeper concerns over your idea that simulation could be an accidental thing without any intelligent involvement and fail to see how a universe arising in the way you describe could be described as simulated
No I'm not questioning your judgement. I'm questioning what the definition of a god is since as stated I haven't see a logically coherent meaningful definition. If you and or Myers said it was indistinguishable from pojitu, it would make exactly as much sense to me.
-
No I'm not questioning your judgement. I'm questioning what the definition of a god is since as stated I haven't see a logically coherent meaningful definition. If you and or Myers said it was indistinguishable from pojitu, it would make exactly as much sense to me.
Creator, maintainer, saviour/reprogrammer.
-
Creator, maintainer, saviour/reprogrammer.
This is an appeal to the Religion and Ethics community, after many years of faithful but erratic service, the Vladbot, our own cross between R2-D2 and Stanley Unwin has finally broken down completely and is now just putting posts up with random words. Are there any of you that can offer a home, maybe a garage, even a shed, oh ok then a hutch will do, to allow the Vladbot to see out its last days while shouting out random words?
He was among the very .... postiest of us..
-
This is an appeal to the Religion and Ethics community, after many years of faithful but erratic service, the Vladbot, our own cross between R2-D2 and Stanley Unwin has finally broken down completely and is now just putting posts up with random words. Are there any of you that can offer a home, maybe a garage, even a shed, oh ok then a hutch will do,
What???? After all the service and effort I've put in, you owe me at least a, er, simulated universe.
-
What???? After all the service and effort I've put in, you owe me at least a, er, simulated universe.
Or even a little hutch can be made an everywhere?
Do you have a definition of a god or is the random word generator what we get?
-
God is not depicted as just a universe-engineer.
Yes.
Partially. God is not merely depicted as a creator, but as something self-creating, the source not just of us but of all, and with an inherent moral 'integrity' (for want of a better description) by its nature. This is a significantly more encompassing description than 'just' a creator of us.
Except that it wasn't, the main point about ID was that it was an attempt to squeeze religious ideas into school science lessons.
It was discarded because they overstepped what a scientific hypothesis could carry - a higher-level computer engineer concept is valid (although perhaps unfalsifiable) but it doesn't give the option of introducing prayer or worship or moral lessons, which ultimately was the point of the ID movement.
No, irreducible complexity is a nonsense argument attempted in support of the theory, but it's independent and demonstrably false.
O.
We are thinking at present of a simulation being run in a machine. That isn't the only place we can run simulations is it?
We cannot on the face of it say what creator lies beyond the simulation, whether it is self creating, whether it isn't the source of all, but in positing the scenario that the universe is intelligently designed we must accept that is a possibility.
ID as proposed wasn't science but the intelligent designer has cropped up again. It is a persistent idea.
I'm not sure about irreducible complexity and not sure how it helps ID certainly no biological irreducibility could be found.
Bostrom proposes we can know we are in a simulation/creation if there are ''windows'' from the other side.
That has a correspondence with the idea of revelation and religion IMO.
-
We are thinking at present of a simulation being run in a machine. That isn't the only place we can run simulations is it?
At the risk of being thought to be mocking, that rather depends on what you mean by 'machine'? :) If, like me, you think that living organisms are biological machines, then yes, it's just machines.
We cannot on the face of it say what creator lies beyond the simulation, whether it is self creating, whether it isn't the source of all, but in positing the scenario that the universe is intelligently designed we must accept that is a possibility.
No, we don't have to accept that possibility - you still need to explain why a 'self-creating' intelligence is a viable concept in what is, to the best of our knowledge, an otherwise exclusively deterministic existence.
ID as proposed wasn't science but the intelligent designer has cropped up again. It is a persistent idea.
So is 'trickle-down economics'...
Bostrom proposes we can know we are in a simulation/creation if there are ''windows'' from the other side. That has a correspondence with the idea of revelation and religion IMO.
Except that if we're a simulation, then we're coded to be fallible, and coding revelation is a questionable method of communication - it's no more reliable a notion of communication in a simulated universe than it is in a physical one. Rather more significantly, if we're in a simulation, that's an explicitly bad method of communication liable to a high error rate, which doesn't correspond well to the otherwise high-quality of the programme.
O.
-
At the risk of being thought to be mocking, that rather depends on what you mean by 'machine'? :) If, like me, you think that living organisms are biological machines, then yes, it's just machines.
well thank you for sharing what you mean by a machine. I used the word in its more everyday use whereby living organisms are considered different from machines.
What I had in mind is that the simulation could be running inside a head or mind.
Sean Carroll has pointed out that we do not know what could constitute a living organism. Also we have no guarantees that the universe from which our universe is the simulation is much like ours. See Tegmark.
But a display of your intellectual flourish not withstanding it makes no difference to the point that in any case we have an intelligent designer outside the universe who has no dependence on it but on whom we have every dependence on.
-
well thank you for sharing what you mean by a machine. I used the word in its more everyday use whereby living organisms are considered different from machines. What I had in mind is that the simulation could be running inside a head or mind.
Yeah, I got that, and yes, in theory a simulation could be running inside someone's (or something's) head - I'm not sure how consciousness for the individual simulacra within that would work, exactly...
Sean Carroll has pointed out that we do not know what could constitute a living organism.
I'd agree, we have no clear definition of what constitutes 'life' and what doesn't.
Also we have no guarantees that the universe from which our universe is the simulation is much like ours. See Tegmark.
We don't know, and we have a limited number of universes about which we know anything in order to extrapolate anything - that said, if our example is anything to go by, we have evolved so strongly along the mechanisms by which our universe operates that we struggle to reliably conceive of anything that fundamentally differs from it, so there's an argument to be made that there's no reason to presume that whomever is simulating our universe, if that turns out to be the case, is any different.
But a display of your intellectual flourish not withstanding it makes no difference to the point that in any case we have an intelligent designer outside the universe who has no dependence on it but on whom we have every dependence on.
And that's a possibility, though there's no direct evidence supporting the hypothesis - however, I'm failing to see what the actual point is, here.
O.
-
An interesting argument against simulated universes is that simulations tend to be skin deep. Thus, if you are making an episode of the Simpsons, you don't actually have to fill their kitchen with everything they might need for the week, or provide them all with clothes ditto. This is because simulations tend to deal in appearances, see video games.
So in a video game, you might have a large explosion, kapoww, and so on, but you don't have to fill in the chemical and physical things going on in an explosion, down to a microscopic level. In fact, you probably couldn't do it, as the information required would be massive. But there's also no point.
Well, you can get round this argument of course, by suggesting an hugely intelligent species, with very advanced computing techniques, so not only would they want to fill in the microscopic detail and the long periods of time required, they would have the means to replicate this.
So your bored teenager in his mum's basement on a distant planet, is even now simulating the exact shade of spray tan on a Strictly contestant. Why wouldn't he?
-
I think that relates to the argument in the link in the OP, wigginhall. Not just is the information redundant, it is overwhelming. I suppose the argument against is for anyone inside the simulation, their idea of detail must be affected by the simulation. So the Simpsons lack of Tuesday and fingers is not important to them .
In addition, if the simulation is merely for me, I.e. given the problem of hard solipsism, there is only the detail I perceive, how complex is it? (after all, there isn't a spoon)
-
I remember that T8 used to compare God with the writer of the Simpsons; I can't remember if we ever got onto the question of useless information, such as microscopic details. I suppose your pimply teenager might do it because he can.
A friend was going on to me about tree rings. Why would pimply teenager on planet XR280 want them?
-
I remember that T8 used to compare God with the writer of the Simpsons; I can't remember if we ever got onto the question of useless information, such as microscopic details. I suppose your pimply teenager might do it because he can.
I thought that was Alien?
Anyway before George RR Martin created Game of Thrones and exercised his right to kill anyone, he wrote one of the great sci fi stories. It isn't about a simulation but it tracks some theist portrayals of their gods.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandkings_(novelette)
-
Well, I am very willing to kneel and pay homage to pimply teenager on planet XR280, but in return, I demand multiple female worshippers of me, who will listen and obey. OK, pimples?
-
Pimples got bored, wigginhall. It's thinking about killing us all now except for 8 best posters in its mind. It's time to dance to survive!
-
There is quite a lot written about glitches in any simulation - I think sci-fi films often show the machine code going haywire, and in the Truman Show, he actually reaches the physical limit of the artificial world. Well, how about Trump and Brexit? Pimples is having fun with us.
-
The Truman Show is essentially a hard solipsism thing though, isn't it? He is the only 'real' thing in it.
-
An interesting argument against simulated universes is that simulations tend to be skin deep. Thus, if you are making an episode of the Simpsons, you don't actually have to fill their kitchen with everything they might need for the week, or provide them all with clothes ditto. This is because simulations tend to deal in appearances, see video games.
That rather depends on the purpose of the simulation, surely? If it's for human entertainment or education then it's predisposed to cater for the human senses, and is therefore focussed on the visual. If you're simulating, say, weather patterns then the more discrete elements you can simulate, and the more precisely you can simulate them, the better. That simulation might only be mathematical, but it's not for human consumption directly, it's to be machine interpreted, and so the visual is no more important - arguably less - than other factors.
O.
-
More on the quasipseudoscientificmetaphysicalphilosophy of Simulated Universes and more specifically it's central tenet that if this simulator exists then IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A PIMPLY TEENAGER PLAYING COMPUTER IN IT'S PARENTS GARAGE ............Dawkins in conversation with Greene comments that it would therefore have to be a remarkably disciplined pimply teenager. Greene then suggested that the be-acne-ed Simulator erases our memories after monkeying with the programme.
Actually researching what lead antitheists say on the subject has opened my eyes on how ostensibly sensible mature men can act vis NDG Tyson on Bill Maher recently.
-
That rather depends on the purpose of the simulation, surely? If it's for human entertainment or education then it's predisposed to cater for the human senses, and is therefore focussed on the visual. If you're simulating, say, weather patterns then the more discrete elements you can simulate, and the more precisely you can simulate them, the better. That simulation might only be mathematical, but it's not for human consumption directly, it's to be machine interpreted, and so the visual is no more important - arguably less - than other factors.
O.
Yes, fair enough, but the argument about 'skin deep' seems to be that our universe isn't. Thus there are trillions of stars, the universe is billions of years old, plants and animals have microscopic detail. Thus old Pimples is pretty obsessive about detail! This doesn't rule it out completely, but it demonstrates the difference between a skin deep simulation and the universe. I think it makes it a bizarre idea, but there we are, so are Venusian mermaids.
-
Are there trillions of stars though, or is that just what you are meant to think?
If there is no spoon, there does not need to be stars
-
Yes, fair enough, but the argument about 'skin deep' seems to be that our universe isn't. Thus there are trillions of stars, the universe is billions of years old, plants and animals have microscopic detail. Thus old Pimples is pretty obsessive about detail! This doesn't rule it out completely, but it demonstrates the difference between a skin deep simulation and the universe. I think it makes it a bizarre idea, but there we are, so are Venusian mermaids.
What would have been the definition of ''skin deep'' have been when space invaders machines were around I wonder.
-
Are there trillions of stars though, or is that just what you are meant to think?
If there is no spoon, there does not need to be stars
Spot on. I've seen the argument that the galaxies are just blurry spots of light, designed to get us excited, a bit like Christmas illuminations, in the dome of the firmament.
-
What would have been the definition of ''skin deep'' have been when space invaders machines were around I wonder.
Well, you can apply it to films and novels as well. We don't demand a complete inventory of someone's kitchen in a novel, or a film, as it would be boring, unless you are in a French avant garde film, and who wants to be there?
-
Given hard solipsism the total amount of detail only needs to be what you are aware of at the time.